1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to a device for controlling and monitoring one or more entrances or exits of one or more controlled parking areas.
2. Description of the Relevant Art
Automated, motor-driven barriers, such as overhead rolling doors or gates, which close access to, and/or exit from, parking areas, are common in society. For example, a public parking lot or enclosed parking garage usually includes a gate or door (hereinafter collectively referred to as a barrier) at each entrance and at each exit. Typically, the barrier is closed. When a person driving a vehicle desires to enter or exit the parking area, the barrier is opened if certain conditions are met, e.g., a fee is paid, a valid pass is presented, an identification is made. Such barriers suffer many drawbacks.
One of these drawbacks concerns property damage and liability claims, which may occur when a vehicle comes into contact with a barrier. For example, it sometimes happens that contact occurs between a vehicle's rooftop, hood or trunk and a lower, leading edge of a barrier. When the parking attendant and/or the authorities arrive at the scene, there is little or no evidence of what actually caused the accident. Usually, there is only a damaged vehicle sitting under a damaged parking barrier.
When such an event occurs, a typical assertion by the owner of the car is: “I waited until the barrier was completely open. Then, I slowly drove my car under the barrier, when suddenly the barrier fell onto the roof of my new car causing great damage to my property and my person. You'll hear from my attorney.” Often, the truth of the matter would have been more accurately stated: “I had just left a cocktail party, and I was running late for a movie. When I saw the parking barrier start to open, I gunned my car toward the exit. I'm sorry, but I drove into the parking garage's barrier.”
Therefore, there exists a need in the art for a control system for a parking area barrier, which can generate an accident event log. Such an accident event log could shed light onto the circumstances surrounding accidents involving parking area barriers and vehicles.
Another drawback concerns diagnosing the operation and performance of the parking barrier. Each year, parking service providers must allocate large budgets for parking barrier repairs and service calls. Common faults include malfunctioning card readers, vehicle sensors, guide systems, motor systems, etc.
If the parking barrier is unmanned, the fault may go unrecognized by the service provider for some length of time (especially if the barrier remains in the open position). Customers will enter or exit by the barrier freely, and would be unlikely to report the malfunction. This situation results in a loss of revenue.
Alternatively, if the parking barrier is manned, the malfunctioning of the barrier may be observed very quickly. However, there is still a drawback. Typically, different repair service companies repair different faults. For example, a faulty parking card reader might be serviced by a different company than a faulty door actuator.
Unfortunately, when a parking barrier fails, the parking lot attendant usually lacks the technical expertise to determine the source of the failure. Therefore, it is common to instruct the parking lot attendant to call all of the various service companies to ensure that operation of the parking barrier will be restored quickly. Of course, this is a waste of resources, since one or more of the service companies responding to the call will have no fault to repair, and will, nonetheless, bill the parking service provider for the service call.
Therefore, there exists a need in the art for a control system, which will automatically monitor and report the performance of various components of a parking barrier. Further, there is a need in the art for a control system that will diagnose the source of a parking barrier failure to an individual sub-system(s) or component(s) so that only the proper service company will be alerted. Further, there is a need for a control system which can disable certain defective components of a parking barrier, so that the parking barrier can continue to remain functional, although not fully functional. Further, there is a need for a control system which will periodically remind authorized personal that defective components have been disabled.
Another drawback concerns employee fraud. A common sensor employed in conjunction with a parking barrier is an embedded loop sensor. The loop sensor detects metal, presumably a vehicle passing by the barrier. Therefore, the barrier will remain open so long as metal (presumably, the vehicle) is proximate the barrier. Parking area attendants have been known to place a metal plate or plates over the loop sensor(s) so as to trick the system into thinking that a vehicle remains proximate to the parking barrier (e.g. a vehicle has stalled under the barrier).
The parking area attendant then vigilantly stands by the barrier, which remains open. Each time a vehicle approaches the barrier, the attendant collects the appropriate parking fee and allows the vehicle to pass by the open barrier. The collected fees are pocketed by the attendant.
The theft is difficult to detect since conventional auditing systems simply count the number of times the barrier is cycled (i.e. opened and closed), in order to determine the anticipated parking revenues. Since the barrier remains opens as multiple vehicles pass, the parking fees, pocketed by the attendant, are not anticipated by the parking service provider.
Another method employed by parking attendants to steal parking revenue involves card readers. Many parking area pay stations include a card reader which accepts a date/time stamped parking card. Sometimes the card reader “locks-up” or “freezes-up.” In other words, the software program stops, because the programming parameters arrive at a state in a state diagram which is undefined, due to erroneous parameters. The program can not proceed. State diagram errors can be sporadic, and are often due to bugs in the original program, noisy power supplies, interference, aging memory devices, etc.
Whenever a card reader “locks-up” or “freezes-up,” the card reader will no longer read data from a parking card. A conventional control system requires a manual reboot to return the card reader to an initial/startup state, so that the card reader is again functional. To perform the manual reboot, a wire or wiring harness is momentarily unplugged, or a reboot or reset switch is activated. As part of the initial/startup process, a pulse is sent to the barrier actuator causing the actuator to open the barrier.
To defraud the parking service provider, the attendant will place an “out of order” sign over the card reader, and will ask the vehicle operator to handover the date/time stamped card. The parking attendant will collect a parking fee, and then press the reset switch causing the barrier to open. The parking fee will be pocketed by the attendant and the date/time stamped card will be disposed of. Again, the fraud will be difficult to detect using conventional auditing systems, since the resetting of the card reader does not increment the cycle count for the barrier, which is used to audit the fees collected by the attendant.
To prevent this type of fraud, many parking service providers do not provide a manual reboot switch or access to the wiring harness, which can reset the card reader. However, this solution is problematic. If the card reader locks-up, the attendant will be unable to reboot the card reader. The attendant will have to wait until a service technician or a manager can arrive to perform the reboot process. This will inconvenience the parking customers if they are forced to wait, or result in lost revenues if the parking customers are allowed to exit without paying. Therefore, there exists a need in the art for a control system, which detects fraudulent activity by a parking attendant.